JUDGMENT F.I. REBELLO, J. 1. Various orders have been passed in the present petition. The record does not show that the petition was formally admitted. In the light of that, Rule, Respondents waive service, Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners had approached this Court on the ground that dumping of rejects had been done outside the leased area and the activities are being carried out in a haphazard manner in total disregard of the environmental laws. The petitioners are owners of the properties as set out in paragraph 1 of the petition. Petitioner No.5 is a Society formed by the farmers of the village having membership at the time of filing the petition of around 30. It is the petitioners' contention that the Government of Goa had appointed Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) to study and submit a report on impact of mining environment in Goa. The petitioners have reproduced the conclusion of the report in which it is set out that the mining companies have led to the economic degradation in Goa. No effective measures have been taken to control the land air and water pollution. The run off from the dumps, pit water discharge and tailing ponds overflowing account for most of the sediment loads in rivers/streams/nallahs. The most affected rivers are Madei and Khandepar. Some of the mining companies have their dump right on the river banks from which there is run off directly into the rivers during the monsoon. Run off from the dumps have affected about 320 Ha of agricultural land due to silting. An air index quality developed for the villagers in the mining areas shows that in many villages pollution is exposed to poor/bad air quality. Dust pollution is a major problem in certain areas. It is also pointed out that scarcity of water is common in all mining areas and is acute in some villages. It is also pointed out that the sites where the mines are located are all forests areas. A chart has been shown to point out that during the period from 1988 to 1997, the Goa has lost a vegetative cover of 2528 Ha. based on the table relied upon by TERI. The petitioners have also complained of violation by Respondents No.10 to 14 of the laws in force. They also pointed out that though they have made various complaints, no effective steps were taken. based on the table relied upon by TERI. The petitioners have also complained of violation by Respondents No.10 to 14 of the laws in force. They also pointed out that though they have made various complaints, no effective steps were taken. Ore is being transported in open trucks, thereby causing air, water and sound pollution. Though the capacity of trucks carrying are is 10 tons they load 13 to 18 tons each. It is also pointed out that some amongst respondents No.10 to 14 have erected on Government land and at any rate without obtaining proper consent from the Central Pollution Control Board or the State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners have also set out the conditions under which the mining plans have to be submitted. It is specifically set out that respondent No.10 has diverted the Advoi Nallah in Survey No. 31/1 of village Pissurlem and this diversion has been done without proper approval. There are other averments. Relief was sought for to produce the copies of the mining plans along with environment impact assessment and the plans thereto and also to make them available for inspection by public at the Panchayat or in their own offices. Further relief sought was to arrange for a mechanism to get the assessment of the crop loss suffered by the villagers of Advoi, done every year and for payment of compensation to the concerned villagers within the deadline to be fixed by this Courts along with arrears thereto, for a further direction to respondents No.10 to 14 to stop dumping on the disputed dumps forthwith and also to take all preventive steps to avoid any further collapse of the dumps by way of construction of laterite stone walls tailing ponds etc., for a further direction to the respondent to ensure desilting of the Advoi Nallah and also construct the side walls thereto on either sides as well as to desilt some part of Madai river wherein there is lot of accumulation of mining silt. It has transpired that various suits were also filed which have subsequently been withdrawn. 3. On behalf of the Goa State Pollution Control Board, an affidavit was filed by Shri Anil A. Parulekar. It has transpired that various suits were also filed which have subsequently been withdrawn. 3. On behalf of the Goa State Pollution Control Board, an affidavit was filed by Shri Anil A. Parulekar. In his affidavit, it is pointed out that under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the activities like discharging sewage or trade effluent comes under the purview of the Pollution Control Board as their consent is required. Similarly under the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 consent is required to establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area for emitting any air pollutants in the atmosphere. It is then submitted that as per the specific provisions contained under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 1957, the mining plans are approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines. It is pointed out that the management of the reject dumps is also a part of the Environment Management Plan and does not require consent of the Board under the provisions of the Air and Water Acts mentioned. An affidavit was filed by Mr. S.D. Sayanak, Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department, now known as Water Resources Department. It is pointed out that the State Legislature has passed the Goa, Daman and Diu Irrigation Act. 1973 (Act 18 of 1973). Provisions therein have been made for the purpose of protection of canals and a Canal Officer is appointed as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act. It is further stated that the silt flowing into the Advoi Nallah steps have been taken for desilting the same and in that connection, the steps which are taken from October, 1996 onwards are set out. It is then set out that the work was being done of desilting of Advoi Nallah and similarly protective measures are also been taken and contribution is made by each company. It is further set out that efforts are being made to protect the flow of silt in the attachment area as well as in the said nallah. The desiltation is a continuous process and the department is taking all and whatever steps possible to protect the flow of silt in the Nallah and in that connection steps are being taken. It is further set out that efforts are being made to protect the flow of silt in the attachment area as well as in the said nallah. The desiltation is a continuous process and the department is taking all and whatever steps possible to protect the flow of silt in the Nallah and in that connection steps are being taken. The Canal Officer under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Irrigation Act, 1973 is also instructed to see that the silt is removed by the respective companies before the onset of the monsoon and also to take appropriate protective measures. He has also written a letter to the Chairman of Advoi Nallah Desiltation Committee. It is set out that the Department is also storing water under the Minor Irrigation Project by means of construction of bandharas for supply of water for agriculture. Inspection Report dated 23.4.2001 prepared by the Mamlatdar of Sattari Taluka, is on record which shows that the Advoi Nallah which originates from Ovaliem village and passes through Pissurlem, Advoi and Madai is full of silt in a length of 8.5 kms. Desiltation is required to be taken up by the mining companies on priority basis and is to be completed before the onset of monsoon otherwise overflow will damage the adjoining properties consisting of cashew, are count and coconut gardens. Dumps of respondents No.10 to 14 are at side of Advoi Nallah. It is set out that as the per directions of this Court, the mining companies have stopped dumping rejects. The various steps required to be taken by the respondents are set out. 4. J.B. Singh, Director of Industries and Mines, has filed his affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2. It is pointed out that along the catchment area of Advoi Nallah, there is a mining lease granted to Shri V.D. Chowgule and another granted to Smt. Guitabala M.N. Parulekar, Reference is made to two mining leases located outside the catchment area of Advoi Nallah but their mining waste dumps are located within the catchment area of the said Nallah. There are mining leases granted to the legal heirs of late Smt. Sunanda D. Bandodkr and M/s. Cosme Costa and Sons. It is then set out that according to mining practice adopted in Goa, the mining lease holders are required to handle mining waste which is generated in the process of winning the ore. There are mining leases granted to the legal heirs of late Smt. Sunanda D. Bandodkr and M/s. Cosme Costa and Sons. It is then set out that according to mining practice adopted in Goa, the mining lease holders are required to handle mining waste which is generated in the process of winning the ore. Due to constraints of space within the lease hold areas some of the mining lease holders are compelled to transport and dump the mining waste even outside the mining lease area. In order to protect the surrounding areas from the flow of silt, the mining lease holders are directed to undertake protective measures which are by way of and in the form of construction of laterite bunds/drains/tailing ponds, terracing and afforestation. It is pointed out that normally during the monsoon some of the mining silt tends to flow down and deposit in the nearby agricultural lands. In June, 2000 on account of heavy flood, large quantity of mining silt flowed down and got accumulated in the catchment area including Advoi Nallah. Under Rule 72 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the mining lease holder is liable to pay to the occupier of the surface of the land over which he holds the mining lease, such annual compensation as may be determined by an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the manner provided in sub-rules (2) to (4). However, the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules do not have any specific provision to deal with the question of compensation towards damage which occurs outside the mining lease area on account of mining activities. It is set out that in view of the interests of the agriculturist/farmers, the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government have imposed special conditions which forms part of the lease agreement in form 'K' executed by the State Government with the respective lease holder. 5. Various respondents carrying on mining operations and who have stacked are, have filed affidavits and highlighted various steps which according to them they have taken. An affidavit has been filed by Rajan Sahai, Regional Controller of Mines. 5. Various respondents carrying on mining operations and who have stacked are, have filed affidavits and highlighted various steps which according to them they have taken. An affidavit has been filed by Rajan Sahai, Regional Controller of Mines. In paragraph 19, it has been set out that a special condition has been included in the mining lease, which reads as under:- "The lessee shall not dump or allow it to be dumped any rejects at any point within a distance of 100 metres from the bank of any river or nallah and 50 metres from the lease boundary, except with the previous permission of the State Government, i.e., respondent No.1. As such, the dumping should have been regulated systematically since the beginning. 6. An application for site inspection and assessment was taken out on 12.8.2002. Based on that and on reference of the Committee appointed pursuant to the directions of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by Jagdish S. Hosamani, reproducing the conclusions are as under:- (1) That no further dumping of mining reject should be done on the existing dumps. (2) That the existing dumps should be protected by construction of laterite boulder walls around the dumps. (3) That though the laterite boulder walls are constructed, to see that they do not collapse, they should be reinforced and in the event if there is collapse, they should be rectified forthwith. (4) That similar protective measures should be taken across the steam to arrest the silt flowing into the nallah. (5) Extensive plantations should be taken up all over the existing dumps which would also reduce to a great extent the problem of siltation and wherever plantation is not possible as a alternate measure pitching with laterite boulders should be taken up. (6) A constant watch should be kept on the accumulation of silt as normally fine silt is accumulated due to various reasons and in instant case to a large extent due to the existence of the dumps. (7) The Mining Companies should undertake on or before the onset of monsoon the desiltaion of the silt deposited in the Nallah and remove the same every year. Further the maintenance of the nallah should be done properly, so that there is no blocking or accumulation of silt in the nallah so as to avoid its overflow during the monsoon season into the adjacent paddy fields and nearby plantations. Further the maintenance of the nallah should be done properly, so that there is no blocking or accumulation of silt in the nallah so as to avoid its overflow during the monsoon season into the adjacent paddy fields and nearby plantations. (8) The silt accumulated in the silting tank constructed by the Mining Companies near the damps should also be cleared every year. (9) That the Mining Companies should follow the instructions given from time to time by the Canal Officer/Department of Mines/Office of Director General of Mine Safety/Indian Bureau of Mines and whatever instructions given should be forthwith implemented by respondent No.10 to 14 (Mining Companies). (10) That every year, the Mining Companies, respondents No.10 to 14 should submit a report about the work executed by them to the above Authorities so as to enable them to verify and make suggestions and in the event if any suggestions/directions are given to them, it should be implemented by them within the prescribed time. Pursuant to further directions of this Court that is whether the respondents No.10 to 14 Mining Companies are willing to adopt the measures suggested therein respondent No. 12 has filed affidavit of one P.T. Naidu, Dy. Superintendent of Mines of respondent No. 12, in which it is set out that respondent No.12 is agreeable to adopt all the ten measures suggested therein. It is not necessary to deal with other averments. Similarly, respondent No.11 has field an affidavit of Shri Ramchandra P. Prabhu Alvenkar Assistant Manager of respondent No.11, wherein they have set out that respondent No.11 is agreeable to adopt all the measures suggested therein. Respondent No.10 has filed their affidavit of one Shri Ulhas R. Kerkar, Senior Manager of respondent No.10, setting out that they are agreeable to adopt all the 10 measures suggested therein. They have also set out the number of saplings that they have planted. Respondent No.14 has filed an affidavit of one Shri Ajodya Nath Patro, Senior Manager, Mining Operation, setting out that respondent No.14 is agreeable to adopt all the measures suggested therein. They have also set out measures taken by them. Respondent No.13 has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.13. Therein, in paragraph 3 they have set out the steps that they would take. They have also set out measures taken by them. Respondent No.13 has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.13. Therein, in paragraph 3 they have set out the steps that they would take. It is further stated that insofar as conditions No. 4, 6, 7 and 10 are concerned, they are not presently operating the mine and when they do operate the mine, they would adopt the measures and submit the report as enumerated in point No.10. 7. In reply on behalf of the petitioners it is sought to be contended that the affidavits of respondent No. 10 to 14 do not indicate proper preventive steps to avoid collapse of dumps and the plantations. It is also set out that the silt accumulated during 2002 was not removed by respondent No. 10 to 14 and desiltation was done only in respect of the portion which had remained incomplete during last year. It is also pointed out that though the respondent No. 10 to 14 have made a statement that they would do plantation on the disputed dumps, except respondent No.10, none of the Mining Companies had done such a plantation earlier. The petitioners also contend that respondent No. 10 to 14 be directed to submit detailed rehabilitation/erosion control plan to this Court and no further dumping of mining rejects should be done on the existing dumps. Respondent No. 10 to 14 shall be directed to review the rehabilitation/erosion control measures taken by them every year and shall repair the same so as to ensure that there is no collapse of dumps or accumulation of silt in the Nallah. It is pointed out that in case of crop loss or damage to their properties, the petitioners should be at liberty to inform the Mamlatdar along with the particulars of their properties affected and the Mamlatdar should ensure assessment of the crop loss as well as assessment towards the expenses for removal of the silt, repairs of retaining walls of the properties and other matters set out therein. 8. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 210 of 2001 was an application for contempt, based on the order of this Court dated 16.4.2001 and also to direct the Mamlatdar of Sattari Taluka to ensure compliance of the order. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 420 of 2001 was again an application for contempt against respondent No.10 and direction to the Mamlatdar. 8. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 210 of 2001 was an application for contempt, based on the order of this Court dated 16.4.2001 and also to direct the Mamlatdar of Sattari Taluka to ensure compliance of the order. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 420 of 2001 was again an application for contempt against respondent No.10 and direction to the Mamlatdar. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 495 of 2001 is an application by respondent No.10 for recalling of some observations made in Order dated 24.9.2001. By the said order all that this Court noted was the main culprit seems to be M/s. Sesa Goa Limited. There is nothing adverse in the said order against the respondent No.10. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 502 of 2001 was an application to direct respondents No. 10 to 14 to deposit in the registry the expenses incurred by the petitioners towards the removal of silt from their properties and wells, repairs of electric water pumps etc. Misc. Civil Application No. 504 of 2002 is an application by four parties that they be allowed to intervene in Writ Petition No. 77 of 2001 and for further relief to issue directions to respondents No. 2, 3, 6 and 7 to ensure that none of the mining companies carry on dumping of rejects without specific approvals from the Ministry of Environment and Forests and also the Pollution Control Board. 9. The Misc. applications, considering the orders to be passed in the main petition, are disposed of without any further orders thereon. 10. From the various averments what is clear is that under the provisions of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, all mining plans have to be approved to enable a lease holder to carry on mining operations. Rule 15 provides for open cast working of mines. It is set out that in open cast workings the benches formed shall be so arranged that the benches in or/mineral and overburden are separated so as to avoid mixing of waste with or/minerals. Under Rule 16 it is provided that the overburden and waste material obtained during mining operations shall not be allowed to be mixed with non-salable or subgrade minerals/ores. They shall be dumped and stacked separately on the ground earmarked for the purpose. Under Rule 16 it is provided that the overburden and waste material obtained during mining operations shall not be allowed to be mixed with non-salable or subgrade minerals/ores. They shall be dumped and stacked separately on the ground earmarked for the purpose. Before starting mining operations, the ultimate size of the pit shall be determined and the dumping ground shall be so selected that the dumping is not carried out within the limits of the ultimate size of the pit except in cases where concurrent back mling is proposed. Under Rule 33, the requirement is that the overburden, waste rock, rejects and fines generated during prospecting and mining operations or tailings, slimes and fines produced during sizing, sorting and beneficiation or metallurgical operations shall be stored in separate dumps. The dumps shall be properly secured to prevent escape of material therefrom in harmful quantities which may cause degradation of environment and to prevent causation of floods. The site for dumps, tailings or slimes shall be selected as• far as possible on impervious grounds to ensure minimum leaching effects due to precipitations. Wherever possible, the waste rock, overburden, etc., shall be back-filled into the mine excavations with a view to restoring the land to its original use as far as possible. Wherever back filling of waste rock in the area excavated during mining operations is not feasible, the waste dumps shall be suitably terraced and established through vegetation or otherwise. The fines, rejects of tailings from mine, beneficiation or metallurgical plants shall be deposited and disposed of in a specially prepared tailings disposal area such that they are not allowed to flow away and cause land degradation or damage to agricultural field, pollution of surface water bodies and ground water or cause floods. Under Rule 34, every holder of prospecting licence or mining lease shall undertake the phased restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by prospecting or mining operations and shall complete this work before the conclusion of such operations and the abandonment of prospect of mine. 11. Under Rule 34, every holder of prospecting licence or mining lease shall undertake the phased restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by prospecting or mining operations and shall complete this work before the conclusion of such operations and the abandonment of prospect of mine. 11. Under Section 14 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 all lands public roads, lanes and paths and bridges, ditches, dikes and fences on or beside the same in the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below the high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks, and all canals and water courses, and all standing and flowing water and all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, which are not property of any person, are hereby declared to be the property of the Central Government subject to right of way, and all other rights, public and individual, legally subsisting. Under the provisions of the Goa Irrigation Act, 1973, under Section 84 whoever damages, alters, enlarges or obstructs any canal, is liable to be prosecuted and punished. Under Section 83, no person shall deposit any produce of mines in or near any canal or other work, whether natural or artificial, through which rain or other water flows into any canal. Canal has been defined to mean under Section 2(2), all canals, channels, pipes and reservoirs, bandharas, weirs, tanks, ponds, spring ponds, and sluices constructed, maintained or controlled by Government for the supply or storage of water. Apart from that all water courses drainage works and flood embankments any part of river, stream, lake, natural collection of water or natural drainage-channel etc. Canal Officer has been defined to mean any officer appointed, or invested with powers of a Canal Officer under Section 3. Various powers have been conferred on the Canal Officer under Part II of the Act. 12. From what is stated earlier we have seen that any person who carries on mining activities, the overburden, waste rock, rejects, arising out of the mining operations are subject to the provisions of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the Goa, Daman and Diu Irrigation Act, 1973, and the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. In the light of the above, this Court accepts the undertakings given on behalf of the respondent No. 10 to 14. 13. In the light of the above, this Court accepts the undertakings given on behalf of the respondent No. 10 to 14. 13. In order to give effect to the conclusions 1 to 10, as set out in the affidavit of Shri Jagdish S. Hosamani, it is necessary to give certain additional directions, so that the undertakings as made and accepted by this Court on behalf of respondent No. 10 to 14 are complied with. (I) No new place for dumping overburden, waste, rejects, etc. will be commenced, worked or started without the permission and approval as required under Chapter III of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. (II) No new mining dump will also be operated without first obtaining clearance under the Goa Irrigation Act, 1973. (III) Permissions to be granted bearing in mind the Rules under which there has to be distance maintained between the mine rejects and the canal as defined under the provisions of the Goa Irrigation Act, 1973. The requirement under the provisions of the Goa Irrigation Act, 1973 shall be in addition to the requirements under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 to the extent that the dump is to be outside the leased area. (IV) Respondent No. 6 and 7 are directed to monitor the work of plantation over the existing dump as required for restoration of land under the Rules and to submit report to this Court every October end. (V) Canal Officer to see that after every monsoon. desiltation is done in terms of conclusion No.7, and at any rate to be completed before November of every year. (VI) Respondent No. 10 to 14, whether they are carrying on mining operations in the area or not considering the undertaking to comply with all the conclusions as set out in para 6 hereinabove if they have leases in the areas. (VII) Respondent No.1 is directed to nominate in each Taluka, where mining operations are carried on, one Mamlatdar to specifically deal with complaints of damages to agricultural land, crop loss, etc. The said Mamlatdar to dispose of the complaint received within six months, by assessing the damages, if any. (VII) Respondent No.1 is directed to nominate in each Taluka, where mining operations are carried on, one Mamlatdar to specifically deal with complaints of damages to agricultural land, crop loss, etc. The said Mamlatdar to dispose of the complaint received within six months, by assessing the damages, if any. If it is contended by any of the mining companies by carrying on the mining activities in that area, that the damage or loss caused is not on account of their operations, but that of another or others, that shall not deter the Mamlatdar from deciding the compensation, and directing the Company or all such Companies to deposit the whole amount or in proportion that the Mamlatdar thinks fit and proper to the extent the Mamlatdar finds them liable. Liberty to those mining companies to thereafter recover the same from the mining company whom they contend is liable by taking action under law. In case the applications are not disposed of within six months from the date they are registered, Chief Secretary of respondent No.1 State of Goa to take steps including disciplinary proceedings, if any, against the Mamlatdars for failing not discharge their duties under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. Rule in terms of directions as contained in this paragraph. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition along with the Misc. Civil Applications stand disposed. Order accordingly.